WTC families awarded $104m .... from Iraq

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
a big wtf to the judge:confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3009251.stm
A New York judge has awarded nearly $104m in damages to the families of two victims of the 11 September terror attacks.

Judge Harold Baer ruled on the basis that the families had been able to show a tenuous link between Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

The compensation awarded to the families of businessmen George Smith and Timothy Soulas may be taken from Iraqi assets frozen in the US.

Although the US Government suspects Iraq supported the attacks, it has not been able to prove a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Judge Baer said in his ruling: "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

The evidence was based on a statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council on 5 February.

'Few actual facts'

The judge also cited claims by former CIA director James Woolsey that the apparent leader of the 11 September hijackers, Mohamed Atta, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in April 2001.

There was also evidence from Laurie Mylorie, an expert on Iraq and terrorism.

"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions... provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al-Qaeda," the judge said.

The families had named the former Taleban regime in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda network, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq as responsible for the attacks.

The case is significant because it is thought to be the first such action against Iraq and al-Qaeda that has reached the damages phase.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
i don't know what why there is such disbelief with the verdict. this appears to have been a civil case
where the standard of evidence needed to reach a guilty verdict is lower than in a criminal case, as
the judge himself, who is quoted, plainly says.

from the article:

Judge Baer said in his ruling: "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence
satisfactory to the court
, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

additionally:


The evidence was based on a statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security
Council on 5 February.

since colin powell made his statement before the u.n., the evidence found on the ground in iraq has
lent greater support for the connection. the circumstantial evidence has grown stronger. period. this
more than enough reason to justify this verdict.

Papers point to tie between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Hmm, well...It is somewhat confusing but...Their are some links, with the evil Iraqi goverment? Maybe?
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
I wrote this reply three times, but it is just so wrong that i cannot reply... would someone please shoot the person who made this up...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
i don't know what why there is such disbelief with the verdict. this appears to have been a civil case
where the standard of evidence needed to reach a guilty verdict is lower than in a criminal case, as
the judge himself, who is quoted, plainly says.

from the article:

Judge Baer said in his ruling: "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence
satisfactory to the court
, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

additionally:


The evidence was based on a statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security
Council on 5 February.

since colin powell made his statement before the u.n., the evidence found on the ground in iraq has
lent greater support for the connection. the circumstantial evidence has grown stronger. period. this
more than enough reason to justify this verdict.

Papers point to tie between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Saudi Arabia is home base for Al Qaida... So, removing the military from Saudi Arabia is the punishment?

The terrorist links are rediculous at best, the US has more links to the WTC terrorists than Irak has ever had, you trained them...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran have had more clear links to terrorism... STOP trying to justify your stupidity by blaming Irak for stuff that hasn't happend... Irak supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers familiys? WRONG, they gave money to ALL families, casualties of war, whether they were shot down by israelils or whatever didn't matter...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and Iran openly supports hezbollah, but who cares...
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Saudi Arabia is home base for Al Qaida... So, removing the military from Saudi Arabia is the punishment?
what topic are you responding to ? any idea ? maybe its the current one ? the original post dealt with the validity of
a civil jury award based on circumstantial evidence. the decision seems apropo given the evidentiary standards of
a civil case within the state of new york. the standard is modest, to begin with, though not loose enough to
get any jury to agree that the color black is actually white.

to indulge your digression, i would say that saudi arabian monarchy needs to appease - and work with - a difficult
body of radicals to see their modest democratic reforms to fruition. knowing how wahhabi orthodoxy knows nor
cares a lick about democracy, which they're no doubt going to perceive as the creeping influence of western
materialism, they'll need to be mollfied first befoe the prince can proceed ever so gingerly with his pet cause.

american corporate interests have assuredly not been affected. even military contractors will continue to reap
their usual profits, even if they now never step foot in saudi arabia.

The terrorist links are rediculous at best, the US has more links to the WTC terrorists than Irak has ever had, you
trained them...
ridiculous ? why ? because you, oh omniscient one, declared them so ? crawl away.

the case for a terrorist link between iraq and al-qaeda is growing stronger as the evidence slowly accumulates.
i understand the intelligence community believes the evidence for the link is poor, but they're also open to change
as new evidence is unearthed. their opinion will evolve as the investigations continue. now that the iraqi regime
has been cracked open, a trove of heretofore inaccessible documentation will lead their thinking into new directions.
this is something the link i provided above aims to do.

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran have had more clear links to terrorism... STOP trying to justify your stupidity
by blaming Irak for stuff that hasn't happend... Irak supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers
familiys? WRONG, they gave money to ALL families, casualties of war, whether they were shot down by israelils
or whatever didn't matter...

using your own assinine logic, why does pakistan and saudi arabia have clearer links to terrorism when they
largely deny involvement in terrorism ?

the documentation for each of those cases is just as circumstantial, or non-existent, as your claim against the iraqi
link. india says they find pakistani military uniforms and weaponry on dead kashmiri militants, pakistan says they
were stolen. india says the islamic militants receive i.s.i. funding, pakistan says the money flows through hawala
networks, notoriously difficult to detect. no documentation. none.

saudi arabia ? weeeell, saudi arabia funds schools. remember ? they fund education inititatives which ignorant
westerners cannot understand due to their ethnocentric myopia. remember ? this isn't terrorism. you misunderstand.
your stupidity is problem. so why must these sweet natured islamic holy men listen to the comments of stupid
people, like yourself, who believe these weak intelligence assessments that establish dubious links. ok ?
rolleye.gif
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
Saudi Arabia is home base for Al Qaida... So, removing the military from Saudi Arabia is the punishment?
what topic are you responding to ? any idea ? maybe its the current one ? the original post dealt with the validity of
a civil jury award based on circumstantial evidence. the decision seems apropo given the evidentiary standards of
a civil case within the state of new york. the standard is modest, to begin with, though not loose enough to
get any jury to agree that the color black is actually white.

to indulge your digression, i would say that saudi arabian monarchy needs to appease - and work with - a difficult
body of radicals to see their modest democratic reforms to fruition. knowing how wahhabi orthodoxy knows nor
cares a lick about democracy, which they're no doubt going to perceive as the creeping influence of western
materialism, they'll need to be mollfied first befoe the prince can proceed ever so gingerly with his pet cause.

american corporate interests have assuredly not been affected. even military contractors will continue to reap
their usual profits, even if they now never step foot in saudi arabia.

The terrorist links are rediculous at best, the US has more links to the WTC terrorists than Irak has ever had, you
trained them...
ridiculous ? why ? because you, oh omniscient one, declared them so ? crawl away.

the case for a terrorist link between iraq and al-qaeda is growing stronger as the evidence slowly accumulates.
i understand the intelligence community believes the evidence for the link is poor, but they're also open to change
as new evidence is unearthed. their opinion will evolve as the investigations continue. now that the iraqi regime
has been cracked open, a trove of heretofore inaccessible documentation will lead their thinking into new directions.
this is something the link i provided above aims to do.

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran have had more clear links to terrorism... STOP trying to justify your stupidity
by blaming Irak for stuff that hasn't happend... Irak supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers
familiys? WRONG, they gave money to ALL families, casualties of war, whether they were shot down by israelils
or whatever didn't matter...

using your own assinine logic, why does pakistan and saudi arabia have clearer links to terrorism when they
largely deny involvement in terrorism ?

the documentation for each of those cases is just as circumstantial, or non-existent, as your claim against the iraqi
link. india says they find pakistani military uniforms and weaponry on dead kashmiri militants, pakistan says they
were stolen. india says the islamic militants receive i.s.i. funding, pakistan says the money flows through hawala
networks, notoriously difficult to detect. no documentation. none.

saudi arabia ? weeeell, saudi arabia funds schools. remember ? they fund education inititatives which ignorant
westerners cannot understand due to their ethnocentric myopia. remember ? this isn't terrorism. you misunderstand.
your stupidity is problem. so why must these sweet natured islamic holy men listen to the comments of stupid
people, like yourself, who believe these weak intelligence assessments that establish dubious links. ok ?
rolleye.gif

Yikes, there are people extremely uninformed in the world aren't there?

Who does Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have clearer links... are you kidding me? ehhh... because there are known training camps there you moron...

Of course, everyone knows that both Iraki troops and Al Quaida members have been trained and equipped by the US...

You pissed in your beer, now you get to drink it, sucks, doesn't it?
 

RigorousT

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
560
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Saudi Arabia is home base for Al Qaida... So, removing the military from Saudi Arabia is the punishment?

The terrorist links are rediculous at best, the US has more links to the WTC terrorists than Irak has ever had, you trained them...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran have had more clear links to terrorism... STOP trying to justify your stupidity by blaming Irak for stuff that hasn't happend... Irak supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers familiys? WRONG, they gave money to ALL families, casualties of war, whether they were shot down by israelils or whatever didn't matter...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and Iran openly supports hezbollah, but who cares...
You have to start somewhere... Diplomacy wasn't going to work with Iraq, and our patience, in the light of 9/11, was tapped dry. Pakistan and SA have proven in the past that they are willing to meet halfway with western concerns. Once you show a firm resolve in foreign policy, other country's fall in line much easier.

Why do you even bring up the military withdrawl from SA? One of bin Laden's "grievances" with the west was our military occupation there. Obviously, Sadam isn't threating war anymore so it makes sense to lessen our presence there.

The US connection with Al Queda is known since our government has been open about its dealings and the context behind them.... unlike Iraq who met with them secretely and has left us accumulating evidence of their mischievous ties.

I think I'll end my attempt to "justify [my] stupidty by blaming Irak (sic)".... Seems you'd rather just rant and demean others rather than have a real dialogue. I'd just ask you to find me a single independent source that backs up your claim that a philanthropistic Iraq compensates all family survivors and not just those of terrorists.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: RigorousT
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Saudi Arabia is home base for Al Qaida... So, removing the military from Saudi Arabia is the punishment?

The terrorist links are rediculous at best, the US has more links to the WTC terrorists than Irak has ever had, you trained them...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran have had more clear links to terrorism... STOP trying to justify your stupidity by blaming Irak for stuff that hasn't happend... Irak supported terrorism by giving money to suicide bombers familiys? WRONG, they gave money to ALL families, casualties of war, whether they were shot down by israelils or whatever didn't matter...

Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and Iran openly supports hezbollah, but who cares...
You have to start somewhere... Diplomacy wasn't going to work with Iraq, and our patience, in the light of 9/11, was tapped dry. Pakistan and SA have proven in the past that they are willing to meet halfway with western concerns. Once you show a firm resolve in foreign policy, other country's fall in line much easier.

Why do you even bring up the military withdrawl from SA? One of bin Laden's "grievances" with the west was our military occupation there. Obviously, Sadam isn't threating war anymore so it makes sense to lessen our presence there.

The US connection with Al Queda is known since our government has been open about its dealings and the context behind them.... unlike Iraq who met with them secretely and has left us accumulating evidence of their mischievous ties.

I think I'll end my attempt to "justify [my] stupidty by blaming Irak (sic)".... Seems you'd rather just rant and demean others rather than have a real dialogue. I'd just ask you to find me a single independent source that backs up your claim that a philanthropistic Iraq compensates all family survivors and not just those of terrorists.

First of all you idiot, i am a swede, i spell Irak like that because of that, inform yourself and you might look less moronic, i spell Al Quaida that way for the same reason, get used to it as you are not alone in this world...

Your entire post seems invalid from my standpoint, rather than trying fo justify what i have questioned, you just repeat the same old stuff... do you know how foolish that makes you look? A lot....

So if the US were open regarding their terrorist links, that makes it ok? That most nations in the middel east have more clear connections to terrorist organizations than irak doesn't bother you at all? Nations that have had US support, does that surpise you at all that the nations that have had US support have not been attacked? While the ONE nation that had the least links was attacked?

You bought into just about everything that was sold to you by your goverment, it is sad, but true...
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Who does Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have clearer links... are you kidding me? ehhh... because there are known training camps there you moron...
umm, i wasn't denying the terrorist links with either country. but thenagain , i wasn't seriously addressing
the evidence against either country.

i was being sarcastic by denying the terrorist claims to demonstrate your own selective treatment of
intellligence info. you overlooked my point about your 'assinine logic' which then dovetailed into a
tongue-in-cheek appraisal of pakistani and saudi arabian claims to innocense.

dear swede, while there are english comprehension tests that may help, you have pathological
deficiencies only a rusty screwdriver jabbed into your temple could correct.

Of course, everyone knows that both Iraki troops and Al Quaida members have been trained
and equipped by the US...

i wanted to ask about a link, a reference to some book or article to support the 'u.s. trained and
supported al-qaeda' b.s. but . . . . 'everyone' !?!? you seem to need this imaginary 'everyone' alot.
are you lonely ? did your villlage ostracize you and force you to live in the wilderness ?

will you please try that human shield tactic thing until you get it right ? thanks.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,696
6,257
126
woot, I'm gonna call my lawyer! :)

Last week I was changing the oil in my car and the oil spilled in my lap..OUCH! It was frickin hot. I'm pretty sure it was Iraqi oil...time to cash in!!
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
91
IMHO that is a particularly narrow minded ruling. However, if it goes ahead I would hope that any money extracted would come from former the former Iraq's captured government chiefs - and not from the money they will need to rebuild their country.

Anything else is immoral IMHO.

Cheers,

Andy
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
SnapIT
3. Please respect your fellow members. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
This is crap. It cheapens what happened on 9/11 and makes some of the victims look like gold diggers IMO. This must be a field day for lawyers, what's the standard these days, 33% of final settlement? Stick with the true concrete facts, not the "maybe, hypotherically, theoretically, allegedly" crap, and don't try to draw parallels between 9/11 and Iraq, its so Bushesque. That money belongs to the Iraqis, there are millions available for the victims of 9/11. They are supposed to be compensated, not rewarded for being victims. I don't mean to sound harsh, just trying to make a point.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
It's funny how many people in here will dismiss the facts of which are not even known, sorry, I trust the judge's decision based on the evidence he heard. The burden of proof in this type of case is also far lower.


"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions... provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al-Qaeda," the judge said.

Did ANY of you hear that expert testimony? Notice he said "reasonable", meaning having the ability to make a decision based on reason, not bias. Maybe if you had heard the testimony you would have reached the same conclusion, the fact that you have no idea yet still dismiss the merits suggests you wouldn't be able to examine the issue "reasonably" even if given the chance.


Snap: "Of course, everyone knows that both Iraki troops and Al Quaida members have been trained and equipped by the US... "

We did not train Al-Queda to commit terrorist acts anymore than we did Timothy McVeigh. Why were they trained? So they could fight for their FREEDOM from COMMUNIST OCCUPATION, slight difference in our intent and their actions later. I was trained in how to drive a car, will you blame my instructor when I willfully run down schoolchildren?

This also goes out to all the people that claim the US armed Iraq to the teeth. What did they use in combat? Soviet tanks, rifles, French jets, chineese missiles, german gps equipment........

ESPECIALLY in the area of WMD the EU is far more responsible for arming the ME than the US, but they also were Iraq's MAIN conventional weapons suppliers as well.
 

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,287
6
81
It seems to me that Mr. SnapIT has a serious altitude problem....
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: adlep
It seems to me that Mr. SnapIT has a serious altitude problem....
dont you start also
if you dont like it, just ignore it, dont comment on it
 

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,287
6
81
dont you start also
if you dont like it, just ignore it, dont comment on it

Hmm :eek: I guess I am just being bitter after his comments in here:
link
I am reading his comments again...And quite frankly I am stil being upset...
But still I would of died for his freedom of speech...
 

RigorousT

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
560
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
So if the US were open regarding their terrorist links, that makes it ok? That most nations in the middel east have more clear connections to terrorist organizations than irak doesn't bother you at all? Nations that have had US support, does that surpise you at all that the nations that have had US support have not been attacked? While the ONE nation that had the least links was attacked?

You bought into just about everything that was sold to you by your goverment, it is sad, but true...
First, let me say that that the U.S. government did not aid terrorists. You do realize that al Queda wasn't formed until after the Afghan-Soviet conflict, right? The tactical training that Bin Laden received was part of a defense effort to protect that country as much as it was to resist communism's spread. We have been open about our past history mainly because we don't have anything to be embarrassed about. It's a shame that we invested all that money and energy only to have them bite our hand ungratefully later, but that seems to be a generally adopted theme worldwide in dealing with the U.S. anyway.

Again I'll reitterate, there is sound reasoning behind aggressively going after an insolent nation as opposed to the others (perhaps even higher profile) that have shown some history of cooperation. Atleast with those countries, there is a chance for diplomacy and negotiations. Iraq has had severe economic sanctions imposed on it for so long that there really isn't much else you can do for leverage. Let's also not forget the fact that the leadership was hauling in substantial funds from illegally piped oil and other sources shrouded behind the Oil-for-Food program... so it's not like they were hurting for money or feeling the sanctions too hard.

Remember, we never formally declared an end to Gulf War 1... there was a ceasefire agreement under explicit terms which were stretched thin by defiance and delay. We had complete international support for disarming Iraq until words on paper became words of action.... and certain countries staggered after weighing in their own perfectly acceptable interests.

We deposed a regime that had it coming. I respect your impassioned viewpoint, but there are times you have to give me more than just "do you know how foolish that makes you look? A lot....." I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong when you can provide me some tangible understanding of why you are right rather than your usual hollow scorn.
 

LP29

Member
Nov 30, 2001
50
0
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
This is crap. It cheapens what happened on 9/11 and makes some of the victims look like gold diggers IMO. This must be a field day for lawyers, what's the standard these days, 33% of final settlement? Stick with the true concrete facts, not the "maybe, hypotherically, theoretically, allegedly" crap, and don't try to draw parallels between 9/11 and Iraq, its so Bushesque. That money belongs to the Iraqis, there are millions available for the victims of 9/11. They are supposed to be compensated, not rewarded for being victims. I don't mean to sound harsh, just trying to make a point.